Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register
Register

Niernberg v. Feld

Law Dictionary
CASE BRIEFS

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
AA
Font size

Property Law Keyed to Cribbet

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.131 Colo. 508, 283 P.2d 640 (1955)

Brief Fact Summary. A husband and wife, the Niernbergs (Defendants), owned land which they agreed to sell to the Felds (Plaintiffs) under a “Receipt and Option” which provided for a $1,500 deposit. The Defendants then sold the property to another for greater than what the Plaintiffs had agreed to and thereafter refused to return the deposit.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. An executory contract involving title to, or an interest in, land may be rescinded by an agreement resting in parol. The statute of frauds concerns the making of contracts and does not apply to rescission.


Facts. The Defendants owned land, which they agreed to sell to Plaintiffs under a “Receipt and Option”, which provided for a $1,500 deposit and the remaining balance was to be paid in cash and secured by deed of trust. Under the agreement, the Defendants were to provide merchantible title by May 1, and the Plaintiffs would secure the financing before May 1, and if any party failed, then any money paid would be held as liquidated damages. After this “Receipt and Option,” but prior to May 1, Plaintiffs desired to back out of the deal and a meeting was held between the two husbands and in the presence of the Plaintiffs’ attorney. It was orally agreed at the conference that if the Defendants sell the house to someone else for the same or greater price than agreed to by the Plaintiffs, then the deposit would be returned, but that if the Defendants had to sell for less, the deposit would be applied to the difference and any remainder would go to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants then sold the
property to another for greater than what the Plaintiffs had agreed to pay and thereafter refused to return the deposit. Plaintiffs sued for the amount of the deposit. The trial court, by jury, found for Plaintiffs and Defendants appealed.

Issue. There are three issues:
Can provisions of a written agreement be rescinded or modified by a subsequent oral agreement?
Was the subsequent oral agreement supported by consideration?
Was the oral rescission of the written agreement effective due to the lack of attendance of Defendant’s wife?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following